On Wed, Apr 4, 2018 at 11:36 PM Gaelan Steele wrote:
> Wow, thanks for taking the time to write this—it’s really interesting and
> I think you have a lot of valid points. (Side note: interesting to see it
> from a British perspective. My understanding of American law is that we
> still operate un
On Wed, 4 Apr 2018, Aris Merchant wrote:
> I might favor some
> carefully implemented system of injunctions or judicial orders that
> allowed judges to remedy the short term harm caused by a
> misunderstanding or rule violation...
It took an incredibly complex (read: "very carefully implemented"
Wow, thanks for taking the time to write this—it’s really interesting and I
think you have a lot of valid points. (Side note: interesting to see it from a
British perspective. My understanding of American law is that we still operate
under the “precedent is perfect” idea, which may have influenc
Gaelan, first, thanks for the interesting proposal. I disagree with it
for several reasons:
First, there are some minor (fixable) technical problems in the
proposal itself. An instrument doesn't nessicarily do anything, except
perhaps alter or create a rule, and even that is kind of uncertain
beca
Proto:
A Clarification is a type of instrument that always has 0.1 power. A
clarification may only clarify existing rules, and may not have any
functionality not already provided by a reasonably plausible interpretation of
a rules; any other functionality is INEFFECTIVE. [Maybe: remove this sen
5 matches
Mail list logo
